Child Support Agency Help!

FBaby

To be honest, it horrifies me that the OP doesn't know anymore than the woman's first name and yet they had sex?

I do totally agree with this. There is a difference between a woman falling pregnant because neither have bothered to consider contraception when hardly knowing each other, and a woman falling pregnant after being in a relationship for years telling her boyfriend that she is on the pill. I think most such women would feel quite offended if her boyfriend/partner insisted on using condoms every time on the basis that he doesn't trust her totally and rather protect himself in case she lies to him and stop taking the pill. Of course there is always a small chance of pregnancy even when on the pill, but I am of the belief that those '...but I fell pregnant whilst on the pill...' are honest. All the women I know who were on the pill because they really didn't want to fall pregnant...managed not to get pregnant for many years. It's somehow always those who seem to start to question whether they might like a child who happens to be suffering from these 'accidents'.

Guest101

sheramber wrote: »

I know her first name, the childs first name and nothing more.

So you don't know anymore about her but she knew enough about you for the CSA to trace you.

Make up a NI number

its AA 11 11 11 A format

Guest101

FBaby wrote: »

Actually she isn't if she doesn't want to since she won the right to chose to abort or give the child for adoption, a choice that men don't have. She is only left with having to raise a child if that is what she wants to do.

Personally, in this day and age of constant shouting about equality between the sexes, I am amazed that there is still such legal differences between men and women when it comes to choosing to become a parent or not. Not have sex...can you imagine deciding to stop abortion laws and tell women that if they don't want to fall pregnant by accidents, they just shouldn't have sex...

True, but the vast majority do raise their kids.

The whole 'dont have sex' thing, for me, is the same as saying dont drink and drive, dont get into a fight, etc. - Live with the consequences.

The problem with 'equality' is... it's not possible. So really it should be 'fairness'.

(and no im not anti abortion)

Pixie5740

DUTR wrote: »

I don't see it as paying, I see it as contributing, the sort of mentality exposed in your post , to me is what hold's women back in modern society. From when I was at school we were taught all genders are equal, so I don't look at it as women are only good for making babies (and claiming benefits indeed that is a large minority), some single parents are from broken down relationships, however whatever the reason, it is not always the male's fault, and any self respecting male is not going to hang around in a loveless set up, we can just contribute 15% net and get on with our lives.

I don't really get the difference between paying money to the mother and contributing. Call it what you will but if you father a child like it or not, according to the laws of the land there is a minimum amount of money you will pay/contribute towards the upkeep of the child.

I also don't see how my mentality is holding modern women back. What is backwards about saying that sexual partners should share important information such as HIV status and contraceptive use? What is backwards about saying that both parties should protect themselves as best they can against HIV and unplanned pregnancies?

DUTR

Pixie5740 wrote: »

I don't really get the difference between paying money to the mother and contributing. Call it what you will but if you father a child like it or not, according to the laws of the land there is a minimum amount of money you will pay/contribute towards the upkeep of the child.

I also don't see how my mentality is holding modern women back. What is backwards about saying that sexual partners should share important information such as HIV status and contraceptive use? What is backwards about saying that both parties should protect themselves as best they can against HIV and unplanned pregnancies?

Yes the minimum amount is a contrbution not a fine and that is a difference between paying and contributing.
The thread is not about HIV.
The mentality is that some women use having children as an excuse for not doing their bit . Of course it is not all and every case is different.
In the case of the OP, he probably is the father of the child and has ignored earlier correspondance.
As for the mother in this case had she been careful too, then she would not have to be fighting and chasing for money, the stigma lays for all parties.

Pixie5740

What have you been smoking? Where did I say anything in my posts about women using children as an excuse for not doing their bit?

You can get hung up on whether fathers are paying or contributing money to the upkeep of their child/children if you want, it's just semantics.

Both parties involved in the OP are equally to blame. The whole matter should and could have been sorted out a lot sooner.

DUTR

Pixie5740 wrote: »

What have you been smoking? Where did I say anything in my posts about women using children as an excuse for not doing their bit?

You can get hung up on whether fathers are paying or contributing money to the upkeep of their child/children if you want, it's just semantics.

Both parties involved in the OP are equally to blame. The whole matter should and could have been sorted out a lot sooner.

Nothing but B&H Gold.
You may not have said it, but your post implies that, it's not me getting hung up on paying or contributing, there is a difference between the two though no need to debate that.
Glad you now agree BOTH parties are to blame, and yes the whole matter could have been sorted much sooner, once the OP is contrbuting (if he should) then his budgetting soon adjusts and if he doesn't want to contribute any more financially or emoitionally then that is his choice only. But burying his head in the sand about it all, won't make it go away.

Person_one

FBaby wrote: »

Personally, in this day and age of constant shouting about equality between the sexes, I am amazed that there is still such legal differences between men and women when it comes to choosing to become a parent or not. Not have sex...can you imagine deciding to stop abortion laws and tell women that if they don't want to fall pregnant by accidents, they just shouldn't have sex...

I think its right that we put the wellbeing of a child first and foremost above its parents. Whatever its parents choose or may want to choose, the child has no choice at all in who gave it half its DNA, but it does have a right to know who they are and to be supported by both of them.

Once a baby exists, its not about the adults' 'rights' anymore.

DUTR

Person_one wrote: »

I think its right that we put the wellbeing of a child first and foremost above its parents. Whatever its parents choose or may want to choose, the child has no choice at all in who gave it half its DNA, but it does have a right to know who they are and to be supported by both of them.

Once a baby exists, its not about the adults' 'rights' anymore.

Actually it's not half the DNA
It's all romantic, but a leaf cannot survive without the tree.

Person_one

DUTR wrote: »

Actually it's not half the DNA
It's all romantic, but a leaf cannot survive without the tree.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/education/guides/z7mbkqt/revision/4